Very interesting academic nonfiction; it was an impulse borrow and I was happy with it :)
It's a thorough ethnographic study of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, based on many interviews, participant observation, archival research etc. It explores how they relate to gender, race and religion (as a predominantly white cis gay group). I thought it was a sympathetic discussion that did not shy away even from tough topics like current use of whiteface and previous occasional use of blackface in the group and how both BIPOC and white members of the order relate to that.
It is also good as a general overview to the Sisters, I think - as an outsider, admittedly, but as someone who is very interested in both religion, queerness, and also serious parody. I found myself thinking of parallels with a very different group that also engages in serious parody, the Two-Tailed Dog Party in Hungary (interesting that I've also seen race as a sore point there, and sometimes even with a similar dynamic).
My only issue was that sometimes I felt that important points were left to the endnotes; the book suffered a bit from the typical issue with Anglo academic writing that one segment should only be about one topic, which makes intersectional ideas face an additional conceptual barrier in explication. (I first wanted to say Western academic writing, but actually I think this is specifically an Anglo issue and less prevalent in continental Europe, even Western Europe.) So e.g., when chapters not about race explored race (there is a very long chapter about race), sometimes this discussion was delegated to the endnotes. I read the endnotes after each chapter because I didn't want to constantly flip back and forth, and I found myself being slightly bothered about things that then were discussed in the endnotes. I feel this might have been mostly resolved just by using footnotes at the bottom of each page instead of endnotes, so it's more of a publisher stylesheet issue than an author issue - the author clearly thought about most things that bothered me. I would have just set the book up slightly differently. To be honest, I prefer these lines of thought incorporated into the main text, but I clash with academic editors over this myself ("this should be moved to a footnote" "Whyyyyyyyyyy"), so I know how this goes :)
Anyway, with my apologies for the long and slightly tangential comment... I enjoyed the book and it also worked well as free time reading.
____
Source of the book: KU Watson Library